search_vulnerability

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that searching can be done by CVE ID or keyword, but it does not describe result shape, exact-match behavior, pagination semantics, rate limits, or any other runtime behavior. For a tool with no output schema, this is a significant gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It communicates the core purpose efficiently. It is slightly undersized given the tool's six parameters and lack of output schema, but on pure conciseness it performs well.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has six parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling search tools, the one-sentence description is incomplete. An agent cannot infer what the search returns, how to scope results beyond explicit parameters, or how this tool relates to search_threat_intel and other sibling tools. More context is needed for reliable invocation and result interpretation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema, mostly restating that the query can be a CVE ID or keyword. It does not enrich the meaning of limit, offset, labels, or date filters beyond what the schema already provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Search for vulnerabilities (CVEs) by ID or keyword.' It identifies the domain and the two primary query modes. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling search tools such as search_threat_intel or search_malware, so it stops short of full differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over the many sibling search tools. It does not state exclusions, fallbacks, or alternative tools. Usage context is only implied by the resource name, not explicitly provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.